Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

One use I have found for skirms ( and it has come in handy ) is forming a picket line during night combat... There are officers I have played aginst taht fight all night....

Marechal John Corbin
Chief of Staff
La Grande Armee

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Antony Barlow</i>
I would argue that we <b>should</b> think of melee as hand to hand combat, or more accurately the imminent threat of it. To equate melee (in game terms) with close range musketry threatens to obscure and downplay the reality of opposing formations actually intending to close with cold steel. I prefer to see melee as an attacking formation weathering the defensive fire of the defending battleline and still having enough coherence and momentum to close the final few yards and make contact with the enemy with bayonet. We can consider some of the casualties (in game terms) as attributed partially to final bursts of fire if we wish, but for it to be a melee the intent is to physically clash with the enemy and drive them off or destroy them through directed mass and ferocity - and the sharpshooting of skirmishers does not fit this image. Of course actual contact was rare due to the very fear of such a brutal clash, but this is the essence of melee. Either the attacker loses confidence and the attack is repulsed, or the defenders decide they want none of it and break.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That is exactly what I mean. There is no hand to hand combat per se. One side closes on the other and as they do so, musketry ensues at very close quarters and the defenidng side either gives ground or not at the risk of coming to blows. I refer to it as close range musketry because casualties have been incurred from some source, and we seem to be agreed that it was not hand to hand combat since bayonnets were rarely crossed. I do not hold with the spontaneous heart-attack theory [;)]

In the case of skirmisher vs battalion, the battalion can not lose, unless it is a very small residue, but that is not what we are talking about here. It represents the skirmishers getting too close, sometimes being able to disorder the battalion, (about one time in four with no penalties), but always themselves taking fatigue (3 points) gaining disorder and incurring casualties, (ie getting the worst of it). But at no time can this close approach of the skirmish line cause a battaliion to withdraw through melee - unless players are stacking large numbers of skirmishers to a hex.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> We certainly see this with cavalry charges and melee against infantry, although of course the infantry can't outrun the sabres if they don't stand!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Cavalry attacking has to involve some element of hand to hand or hoof to head combat as cavalry did not generally have a ranged weapon for use on the charge. Their casualties from melee though were still more likely to be incurred from musketry from a battalion as they closed.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Of course preliminary bombardment, the action of offensive and defensive skirmishing, and the delivery of volleys by the formed units prior to them closing are crucial in disordering and shaking the morale of either side, or of settling the issue without any intended contact (of course effective musketry was a dreadful thing too!), but the melee itself should be viewed as the threat of actual brutal hand to hand fighting, and not the fire combat which precedes it, in my opinion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Agreed, except as the forces close towards hand to hand combat that does not occur, casualties are taken. This can only happen as muskets are discharged, think of it as one side holding their fire before that final volley a little longer than the other and inflicting more caualties as a consequence and winning the 'melee' (stopping the advance or causing the defending units to fall back).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In game terms we have all these ingredients without making fire combat and melee combat mean the same thing. Rather they are two complementary actions, the possibility of melee being aided by the success of the fire combat, or being abandoned as a result of the defensive fire getting the upper hand and the failure of any offensive fire.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

For infantry it has to be the same thing, otherwise, casualties are not taken from the threat of something, otherwise each time you change formation in a threat zone you should incur casualties. They die because of ranged fire or hand to hand combat. Hand to hand combat was rare between infantry formations. Normal fire in the game is represented by 15 minute fire phases, or two 7.5 minute phases as you choose to see it, conducted at ranges of 1-200 metres. Casualties are appropriate to the number of musket discharges and the time scale. The close quarters ranged fire that melee represents is one volley, as the units close, inflicting a propotionately much higher number of casualties than the ranged fire due to the proximity.

It can be seen as the skirmishers coming too close to their quarry and battalions 'automatically' driving them back, if you prefer.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The separation of fire/missile combat and melee combat is or course more distinct if you look at early eras of warfare - phalanxes, shieldwalls, spears, pikes, etc. Or think of the Romans throwing their pila and then charging, the one being just a preliminary to the other.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The difference is that the Romans had a limited stock of ranged weapons, so were going to have to close for hand-to-hand fighting. Put a musket in a man's hand and he has a tendency to use it as a musket rather than as a spear or a club[;)]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It's a fascinating topic and I admit that simulating the reality of combat with such an abstract gaming system is bound to throw up questions and be open to interpretation. The above is just the way I like to visualise it[:)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It certainly is and there is nothing wrong with the way you visualise it

Regards

Mark
VII Corps

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by WillieD13</i>
I like to keep some skirmishers stacked with battalions. Think of it this way, they are the flank guard and allows a bit of protection and the ability to return fire against flanking and/or rear attacks. I don't see this as a problem though. If a commander wants to tie his skirmishers to a Bn, that is his choice. It can also backfire. If the Bn routs, the skirmishers may or may not rout with them, and they may rout to different locations, so they are scattered all over the place.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So do I.

What I do not like though is the deployment of a battalion in a hex with up to 7 skirmish companies. True, the skirmish companies are no longer treated as such and gain no benefits, but they can each fire, each absorb fatigue or disorder independently, whereas what should be there is two battalions. One or two skirmishers to protect flanks is not a problem, although, strictly speaking, if the battalion is in line formation, should the skirmishers always be below it in the stack and unable to fire?

Regards
Mark VII Corps

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mark Eason</i>
What I do not like though is the deployment of a battalion in a hex with up to 7 skirmish companies. True, the skirmish companies are no longer treated as such and gain no benefits, but they can each fire, each absorb fatigue or disorder independently, whereas what should be there is two battalions. One or two skirmishers to protect flanks is not a problem, although, strictly speaking, if the battalion is in line formation, should the skirmishers always be below it in the stack and unable to fire?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hmm, what then about "getting rid of skirmisher coys", this being replaced by bn's status "skirmies deployed/not deployed/restricted"? Bns with skirmies deployed then will not give us excessive fire and functionality, while it will be possible to give them bonuses for melee(both defensive and offensive)/fire/"zone of endanger"/whatever. In this way we'll get rid of "skirmishers closing regular units/being too far from parenthal units", while being able to represent all their power in close proximity of their parental unit/enemy. Deploying/re-taking of skirmishers will take some action points, unit with "deployed" skirmies could have its movement speed bit lowered, but its melee/fire strenght will be boosted up. Maybe this could make us all (or most of us) happy?
What do you think?
(but, anyway, this will bring up requests to change the game engine, which will be rejected quickly [:)] but - maybe not? [:D])

GL. Pavel Stafa
Russian Army Chief-of-staff
Leib-gvardii Preobrazhenskiy polk
Kommanduyuschiy Korpusom Rezerva
2-oy Zapadnoy armii EIV

It seems Baron is in favour of switching to the ACW style "skirmisher" system - perhaps he'd be rather less keen on this if he'd played the ACW games and found that it was necessary to move a full unit right to the edge of a wood or other difficult terrain in order to see more than a single hex beyond only to get blasted from two hexes by enemy guns.

I far prefer the Napoleonic detachable skirmishers and would actually like to see this sort of skirmisher introduced into the ACW engine too. But perhaps the best solution would be to incorporate <i>both</i> sorts of skirmisher into both engines - this would enable a clearer distinction between proper light infantry able to break down and operate independently (particularly in woods, etc) and the skirmisher sub-company of a regular unit that ought to remain close to its parent body and shouldn't become detached or operate independently.

So I'd recommend:

1./ Keep the current skirmisher system for light infantry and independent "S" skirmisher units.

2./ Introduce the ACW "with skirmishers" system for the skirmisher sub-units of line regiments.

3./ Carry this double system over to the ACW engine as well.


Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

Well, still do not like "independent" skirmishers, but Richard is right in that strong LOS problem (you are unable to see 1000 enemy cavalrymen standing across the field/hedge just some 200 metres off your position [:D]). But IMO skirmies should help in low-range "recon" of terrain, leaving squadrons of light cavalry in their historical role (med-to-long range recon). Maybe "skirmies deployed" stzatus could reveal all enemy units in close proximity (x hexes, depending on scale and results of some betatesting), whatever the terrain is (parental unit sends pickets forward through/over difficult terrain features)?
PS: anyway, we r comming to REALLY big engine changes [:D]

GL. Pavel Stafa
Russian Army Chief-of-staff
Leib-gvardii Preobrazhenskiy polk
Kommanduyuschiy Korpusom Rezerva
2-oy Zapadnoy armii EIV

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Baron</i>
Maybe "skirmies deployed" stzatus could reveal all enemy units in close proximity (x hexes, depending on scale and results of some betatesting), whatever the terrain is (parental unit sends pickets forward through/over difficult terrain features)?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's exactly how the feature works in the ACW games. On covered terrain, you see only into adjacent hexes; with skirmishers out, you "see" into the next hexes beyond that (only in the direction you are facing). However, all you get is a "?" for the enemy units.

<center>Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Baron d'Empire, Duc des Pyramides
Commandant de la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant l'Ecole de Mars, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>That's exactly how the feature works in the ACW games. On covered terrain, you see only into adjacent hexes; with skirmishers out, you "see" into the next hexes beyond that (only in the direction you are facing). However, all you get is a "?" for the enemy units.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Mmmm, I would let this range grow a bit (ignore all terrain in 3, maybe more, hexes around/front) and add such ability to squadrons of light cavalry as well (probably ballancing this advantage with some movement/morale penalty). And we should be able at least recognise type of enemy unit revealed (infantry, cavalry, artillery, "other").
Hmmm, I would like such feature! [;)]

GL. Pavel Stafa
Russian Army Chief-of-staff
Leib-gvardii Preobrazhenskiy polk
Kommanduyuschiy Korpusom Rezerva
2-oy Zapadnoy armii EIV

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jon Thayer</i>
<br />I think an interesting point has been raised. I for one have come to the conclusion that skirmishers have almost no purpose in HPS games. Formed battalions do not disrupt when they melee skirmishers. Skirmishers seldom hit many men with their firepower. Maybe I just don't understand how to use them but so far I find them very ineffective. So if they were allowed to melee with formed units they would have a purpose. They could also have a purpose of screening the formed battalions if you had a house rule that allowed skirmishers to melee with formed battalions unless the formed battalion was stacked with a skirmisher. Thoughts?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think skirmishers in the HPS game have a considerable nuisance value, and that's very historical. They can snipe at the enemy and cause casualties and disruption while taking very few losses in return. They screen the formed units behind them from enemy fire (to a certain degree). They have to be meleed out of the way before you can close with the enemy main body. They negate the flank or rear melee modifier against a formed battalion if facing in the direction of the threat. They are just great for manning chateaux or for occupying the far side of a village or forest with a picket line. In short, they are very useful.

They are not, however, the supermen that the BG skirmishers were, and I am glad they are not. I can understand that for veterans of the BG games they can appear incredibly weak, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

Skirmisher in HPS games have two weaknesses that I find unhistorical and annoying. They are automatically eliminated (rather than pushed out of the hex) when a formed battalion retreats into their hex from a melee. And they are also automatically eliminated in cavalry overruns, which doesn't make sense because (a) the skirmishers were trained to quickly form clusters (Klumpen) when threatened by cavalry which made them pretty resistant and (b) where the hell do they go to? Can anyone picture a charging squadron taking several skirmish companies prisoner?

Now for the life of me I cannot see 100 lights "melee" (in any sense of the word, but I cannot see a reason why melee should mean ranged fire when we explicitly have ranged fire as a separate feature in the games) a formed battalion of 500-1000 men. It would be rather unhistorical, and it would increase the nuisance factor of skimishers to a degree where they can cripple the effectiveness of an entire army. Seeing this happen regularly would certainly kill the game for me.

<center>Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Baron d'Empire, Duc des Pyramides
Commandant de la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant l'Ecole de Mars, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

I think neither BG no HPS engine doesn’t reflect properly the role of skirmishers on the Napoleonic battlefield: BG exaggerates and HPS misestimates it.

The main problem of HPS skirmishers is a “disorderedâ€

I agree with the points raised by both Dierk & Vladimir. Skirmishers getting completely wiped out by charging cavalry or retreating formed infantry hardly make sense - the logical fix would be for the skirmishers themselves to retreat into an empty or friendly hex.

Disruption - or rather 1/2 rate disruption movement allowance - is a serious problem for all troops, not just skirmishers. It sort of makes sense for units acting offensively to receive a movement penalty if disrupted, but for troops that are attempting to retreat it makes no sense whatsoever.

Perhaps the answer would be for there to be various levels of disruption - maybe on a scale of 0-9 - rather than the current over-simplistic straightforward good order/disruption system. In this case units could use up part of their movement allowance to reduce their disruption level. However, disrupted units wouldn't suffer any movement penalty as such. Thus a heavily disrupted unit could still retreat at full speed, but it would be pretty useless for combat purposes.

Perhaps disruption levels:

1-2 = 75% combat effective
3-4 = 66% effective
5-6 = 50% effective
7-8 = 33% effective
9 = 25% effective (perhaps if a unit reaches this level of disruption it should automatically rout?)

A completely stationary unit could reduce its disruption level by 3 (or 4 if stacked with a leader), or a unit could use up 1/3 of its movement allowance and attempt to reduce its disruption level by 1 at say 75% probability (if "C" quality), or 50% probability if near the enemy. Attempting to recover disruption when in proximity to the enemy should also have a chance of triggering enemy fire.

Every time a "C" quality unit receives fire losses it would have a 50% chance (more of course if lower quality) of increasing disruption by 1 level, while a melee would automatically increase disruption by 2 levels if winning or 3 levels if losing.

This system would encourage players to withdraw disrupted units from the front line to recover disruption as well as fatigue. But with no movement penalty directly linked with disruption, it wouldn't prevent disrupted units from retreating.

The present system's 1/2 movement allowance for disrupted units is badly flawed as it effectively means that these units inevitably get left behind to their fate.

A system where players could "spend" part (or the entire) movement allowance removing disruption from a unit makes far more sense and would be a lot more flexible, as the player would have the choice of just getting a unit away from the enemy OR leaving the unit where it is and "spending" movement points to reduce disruption.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
Can anyone picture a charging squadron taking several skirmish companies prisoner?

Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

[:p](After prolonged meditation) At Beresina – As the battle on the Western bank of the river conducted in the light forest Russian general Sabaneev deployed to skirmishers the whole infantry division. It was charged by general Doumerk (7-me Cuirassiers regiment) and routed. Two or three thousand of Russians were captured.

But in the main I agree with Dierk. [;)] A company sent to skirmish rarely was totally dispersed. Usually 1/2 or 1/3 of this company was leaved at reserve. In the case of cavalry charge skirmishers formed a tight crowd on the basis of this reserve, so they have good chances of withdrawing to the parent unit and saving (for example French voltigeurs at Ostrovno).
Therefore I think skirmishers who standing next to the formed unit should not be easily annihilated by cavalry (HPS). Of course they also cannot stop cavalry charge (BG). They have simply to withdraw to the hex with the formed unit.


Ober-Lt V. Komissarenko
Vincent (La Tour) Chevaulegers
KUK Osterreichische armee

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Vladimir K.</i>Therefore I think skirmishers who standing next to the formed unit should not be easily annihilated by cavalry (HPS). Of course they also cannot stop cavalry charge (BG). They have simply to withdraw to the hex with the formed unit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What about weakening of this "pushed" coy (skirmies lost some strenght during their move) and their automatical re-join with parental unit(maybe if in some close proximity, skirmies too far form "their" supporting regulars could be totally dispersed, IMHO)? With them just stepping one hex back (or to contact with their support) I feel that we could easily end with "hexes (non)eligible for stepping-back" ...

GL. Pavel Stafa
Russian Army Chief-of-staff
Leib-gvardii Preobrazhenskiy polk
Kommanduyuschiy Korpusom Rezerva
2-oy Zapadnoy armii EIV

"Hi Malcolm
My hand went up but only in the gesture employed by Welsh Longbows toward the French Knight at Agincourt"

I trust, Sir, that you still have your fingers and that they are pointing in the right direction[:)]

Kolonel Sellick Davies,
III Bataillon Nassau-Usingen,
2nd Bde,

It is nice to start such a lively debate. In truth, you only have to mention the word skirmishers to get people's keyboards burning. This one has gone off in every direction, when my original remarks were about skirmishers meleeing formed battlions, prior to the main body moving into contact. Let's face it, there is only so much you can build into a game engine without losing playability. It is too easy to get lost over this detail or that detail or "would this have happened in real life" etc. The important thing is does the game feel right and do the rules allow you to use tactics appropriate to the era. It is my opinion that allowing skirmishers to melee permits me to use historical tactics and the outcome is realistic. Some imagination as to what is actualy occuring during the melee phase is alowed provided the overall game balance is true. Some do not agree and that is fine, it is what feels right to you that matters.

I would repeat my earlier remarks that the melee phase does not necessarily mean actualy crossing bayonets, is is simply a period of close action. Let me give an example.

Imagine, if you will, a few moments ago, the British line has sent its traditional two volleys into the head of the French column. The action I describe follows the volleys. The British Colonel sees the column waver any orders the line to advance. The bayonets are lowered, the troops cheer and rush forwards. A few hardy French souls fire off some rounds and 10 redcoats fall. The rest of the column retreat in disorder then rout and 50 Frenchmen surrender. For our purposes, The attackers occupy the hex, the defenders move back [and rout at the end of the game turn.] The combat results show 10 British casualties and 50 French. The action has all happened in the melee phase, but there has been no melee, no hand to hand, no clash of swords, no contact at all. So a melee does not necessarily mean a melee, it is a period of close action. So there is no need to assume that skimishers can not melee formed troops. It is the outcome that counts.

Général de Brigade Malcolm Cumberlidge
"Vigueur et Honneur"
Chef d'Etat-Major
1er Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie
Armée du Nord